Baby Jayden was born with a strong heartbeat. He moved his arms and legs. But none of that mattered. You see, government regulations state that doctors don’t care for babies born before 23 weeks. And Baby Jayden was two days short of 22 weeks. So he was left untreated. To die. Baby Jayden’s mother said she cried to one doctor, “You have got to help.” And the doctor said, “No we don’t.” He was following the rules. They told the mother just to enjoy the time she had with her baby son.
So for two hours doctors and nurses ignored the baby’s strong heartbeat and the mother’s cries for help until baby Jayden died.
Is this what you want, all you fans of ObamaCare? Is it?
Daily Mail reports:
Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.
Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy – almost four months early.
They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.
According to the mother, she was told that doctors would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later.
James Paget Hospital in Norfolk said it was not responsible for setting the guidelines relating to premature births. A hospital spokesman said: “Like other acute hospitals, we follow national guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine regarding premature births.”
National guidance? Sound an awful lot like the ol’ “we were just following orders” defense.
The guidelines state: “If gestational age is certain and less than 23+0 (i.e at 22 weeks) it would be considered in the best interests of the baby, and standard practice, for resuscitation not to be carried out.”
Guidelines? Standard practice? Never mind that a baby in Florida was born recently at 21 weeks and six days and is doing fine.
But you’ve got to love the guidelines saying what’s in the “best interests” of the baby? Come on. It’s in the best interests of the baby not to give the baby a fighting chance? Pardon me but I get a little tired of hearing the government decide what’s in the “best interests” of people.
Pro-choice punks are all about allowing the mother to decide if the baby’s allowed to live or die until the mother actually decides she wants the baby to live. Then and only then does the government jump in and say sorry, now we actually care about what’s in the best interest of the baby. Then the mother doesn’t get to choose. And guess what? The government decides it’s in the best interests of the baby to die.
This strange death fetish has infected the morals of Western civilization and is destroying it from the inside. This perverted form of mercy that “allows” someone to die as their mother screams for help is a tyrannical sickness that is hollowing us out.
This is where we are folks. Western civilization has progressed itself into a death cult that is on the brink of disappearing forever.
And tonight we’re about to hear a big speech from our President why we should continue marching along in lockstep with the death cult. This is what’s at stake. Make no mistake about it.
HT Pewsitter
September 10, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Whoa, Mouse, don't lump me in with Anon!
I am not insulting Foxfier in the least, I am meerly defending my postion. I wish her nothing but the best with her pregnancy and you with yours.
I have 3 beautiful girls at home myself. The second one was born at 24 weeks and weighed only 16 ounces so I am somewhat familiar with the preemie ordeal. Thankfully, my wife didn't have to go through what both of these mothers experienced before she was born. She just shot out on the floor of the ER as the nurses were telling my wife that she probably was having false labor due to kidney stones.
September 10, 2009 at 6:33 pm
In Craigs defense, though at very opposite ends, I'm pretty sure he'd know foxes are vixens and not bitches. ;^p
Thank you greatly for the defense, though, Mouse– and best wishes with your babies!
She just shot out on the floor of the ER as the nurses were telling my wife that she probably was having false labor due to kidney stones.
Oh, that is epic visuals. I'm presuming, since you're able to mention it casually, that the kid is alright?
September 10, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Craig,
I didn't mean to lump you anon. Sorry it came out that way. My fuzzy reading of the conversation was that you were disagreeing with FF and I was trying to explain why you'll have to agree to disagree with her. My very negative comments were meant for the cowardly anon poster, not you. π
And, having read the entire conversation in one go, (with Thomas the Tank engine playing in the background and the air conditioner broken), was that you were defending the actions of the doctor in this case. I re-read your comments and found that this is not the case. Apologies.
I am going to have to say, though, that I think Money and Death often go hand-in-hand in any culture. I'm thinking that the docs may have been willing to do more to save those lives if legally it wasn't already open-season on them.
September 10, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Hey, Foxfier!
No problem! We mama bears should stick together, right? π
Best with your little one, btw. Do you know boy or girl?
September 10, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Oh, yes!
Thanks for asking, Foxfier!
She was born still encased in the placenta so she was starved of oxygen for a short while which resulted in a case of mild cerebral palsy but she's 12 now and doing very well.
And I agree that vixen is a much more appropriate term. π
Again, good luck!
September 10, 2009 at 7:04 pm
I put my name to everything I write, and I very very very seldom insult anyone.
And I think the basic impulse of everyone here who feels strongly that the preemie should be treated is a normal and good one.
However I want to address what someone said, ridiculing that there was no mean between a million dollars of premie care and doing nothing.
I don't think there is such a mean.
What intermediate measures would you want to have taken? A heated incubator and blow by oxygen? The baby will still die, and his mother won't be holding him.
The fact is that once committment is made to treat a preemie there are elaborate protocals and care pathways to be followed, and anything less is substandard care. Hospitals can't deliberately provide substandard care. It is either the decision that the baby is too premature to survive or the committment to half a million to a million dollar's worth of care.
I have heard that sometimes doctors do make a decision that a certain preemie newborn "looks like a fighter" and that they will even fudge numbers to justify treatment. I have also read that sometimes socioeconomic factors have a place in these decisions; do these parents, does this mother, appear to be able to provide the kind of services this child will likely require if he survives? I think we can all see some dire pitfalls possible with the second kind of flexibility in making this decision.
It sounds wonderful to say we should treat every preemie who shows some signs of life, but some are born so early that their skin and veins are too delicate to handle IV's and their lungs unable to handle the slightest ventilator pressure. There is still a threshold of possible viability.
Decisions not to treat, not to attempt to rescue, have to be made. Perhaps this decision was not right, perhaps the baby was more mature than the numbers, perhaps the doctor had grown callous. But it makes no sense to say that there is no decision to be made.
Susan Peterson
September 10, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Craig,
Congratulations on your girls and on the wonderful outcome for your 24 week preemie. I converted her weight to grams, and if it was exactly 1 pound, it comes out to less than 500 grams and thus less than the weight limit some hospitals use. I rejoice that your child was treated and lived.
I just think we should discuss these situations with some concrete knowledge of what is involved. Certainly no one will take us seriously if we show we don't have a clue what we are talking about regarding preemies of very low gestational age.
(And at that age every week counts, so that there is a huge difference between 21 or 22 weeks and 24 weeks in the outcomes.)
Susan Peterson
September 10, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Susan,
When I said "Anonymous" I meant the Anonymous poster who called Foxfier a bitch. Not you.
And I explained where I was coming from. Perhaps I can't think as rationally as you on this point, but if it were my baby, I would want all possible care to be exerted, if for no other reason than to keep the baby alive long enough to let the rest of the family say goodbye and get some closure. Also, that mother will live for the rest of her life wondering "What would have happened if my baby had been treated?"
Sure it's complicated. But we'll have to agree to disagree.
September 10, 2009 at 8:00 pm
eulogos, the doctor's responsibility is to try, to the best of his ability, to save the life of the patient. Difficulties later in life don't justify withholding treatment. Is death somehow better than life that has difficulties?
My 640g preemie has overcome all sorts of problems. Yes, she has BPD, had 3 surgeries before age 1, came home on oxygen, etc. And, yes, her stay at the hospital came to near $1,000,000, once you add in all of the separate doctor's bills (the hospital room/staff was about 2/3 million).
My daughter has a small stature, wears AFOs, needed hearing aids (since resolved), has low muscle tone, nystagmus, continuing eye exams for ROP, and various other issues. All of this, and more, is bearable.
The desire for an easy life leads to an aversion to life's natural difficulties. Is life hard when a person has additional physical or mental problems? Sure. Does that make life not worth living? Not at all. It's certainly not the doctor's job to make that decision…his job is to treat the patient, not ignore the patient because treatment may cause someone to have difficulties later in life.
September 10, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Okay, okay. Let's look at this again.
Craig, you say that the doctors in Florida are roughly following the same protocol as the doctors in England. One is insurance, the other bureacuracy. I disagree, but that's not what I'm interested in here.
Do you think Obamacare would alleviate the situation? Or some other reform? Or do you believe that while it sucks, it's the best we can do?
And this ain't no "A-HA!" trap, I'm just curious. 'Specially since Obama is in utopia land, and it's hard to get any true perspective from him.
September 11, 2009 at 3:43 am
Mouse-
No, don't know kiddo's sex, although I use "he" generically; we keep telling folks that the last time someone in my family tried to find out girl-or-boy before birth, they were told it was twin boys…then my grandmother had my mom.
;^p
eulogos –
it is I who mock the only options being leaving a child to die without raising a hand, and bringing down the full force of heroic efforts.
For comparison, both of my grandfathers died after rejecting heroic treatment measures; Mrs. Schiavo died because basic comforts, food and water, were denied her. There's a huge, huge gulf in morality between the two.
September 11, 2009 at 1:14 pm
William,
If the guidelines need to change because of advances in medical science, I believe Obamacare (your term, not mine) would not stand in the way of that.
September 11, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Hey, Foxfier,
We never found out with ours, either. The suprise is nice, plus I get to work on two sets of names before hand. π
Hey, Craig,
I just have a quick question. I'm trying to follow the debate on healthcare and some it starts to sound like two kids screaming "Am not!" and "Are too!". So, I'm trying to get someone who sounds thoughtful and mature to give me a sound perspective on what William was asking about. I'm assuming William meant "socialized medicine" when he said "Obamacare". Please correct me if I'm wrong. One argument that I've heard leveled against socialized medicine is that the process, when regulated by the government, and thereby eliminating all sense of competition or lack of incentive to advance in one's field (if all the profits are the same, why try, right?), it would inhibit any progress in medical science, thereby putting at a disadvantage those who would benefit most from those advancements (preemies, cancer patients, the elderly, etc.). Please do not attempt to diagram that last sentence. π At any rate, this is what I've heard argued, and I haven't heard a rebuttal on this. Can you help me out?
September 11, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Yeah, you're correct Mouse, that's what I meant and was curious about.
September 11, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Mouse,
That's a very big question and I'm swamped today. I'll gladly try to answer your questions, but it probably won't get done today. I'll most likely post some answers here for you tomorrow (Saturday).
Have a great day!
September 11, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Foxfier, you haven't said what measures you think should be taken which fall between letting the child die while being held and comforted by its parents, and the full protocal of premie care. You haven't addressed the issue that once care has started, giving anything less than standard of care treatment is malpractice. I suggested some intermediate measures such as the care given to much older premies who can breathe on their own…blow by oxygen and a heated incubator, pointed out that the child will die anyway with only that care and that wouldn't it be better for the child to die in its mother's arms? I suppose one might give a bit of oxygen while the mother holds the child, but the purpose of this would be to make the mother feel that something was being done. And I repeat that doing this would probably make the hospital liable to a lawsuit, unless they worked it up as a "palliative care protocal" for newborns too small to survive..and then they would have to show that it was, indeed, palliative.
Matthew,
I don't think difficulties later in life justify not treating. But when the chance of survival is minimal (before 23 weeks), misiscule (before 22 weeks) or none (any earlier than that), the burdensomeness of the treatment can be considered.
Susan Peterson
September 11, 2009 at 8:21 pm
eulogos-
and you have not stated why it is all the forced of heaven and earth or nothing.
Frankly, giving a newborn less care than would be offered an orphaned kitten would seem to require much more explanation.
By the fact that this story is making news, it would seem many agree with me.
September 11, 2009 at 8:22 pm
BTW-
But when the chance of survival is minimal (before 23 weeks), misiscule (before 22 weeks) or none (any earlier than that)
you *do* realize the earliest preme was 21 weeks, right?
"Impossible" is a rather extensive word.
September 12, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Mouse,
Here is a wonderful op-ed I highly recommend you read:
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/socialized-medicine-not-quite/blog-138149/
Here's a quote from there that offers a rebuttal:
"Any American who's had a hip or knee replacement is standing on French innovation. Deep-brain stimulation to treat depression is a Canadian breakthrough. Many of the wonder drugs promoted endlessly on American television, including Viagra, come from British, Swiss or Japanese labs."
Here's another link you may find interesting:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#research
Here's the section regarding what you're asking about:
"Much current medical research is publicly financed through the National Institutes of Health. Under a universal health care system this would continue. For example, a great deal of basic drug research, for example, is funded by the government. Drug companies are invited in for the later stages of βproduct development,β the formulation and marketing of new drugs. AZT for HIV patients is one example. The early, expensive research was conducted with government money. After the drug was found to be effective, marketing rights went to the drug company.
Medical research does not disappear under universal health care system. Many famous discoveries have been made in countries with national health care systems. Laparoscopic gallbladder removal was pioneered in Canada. The CT scan was invented in England. The treatment for juvenile diabetes by transplanting pancreatic cells was developed in Canada."
Hope this helps!
September 12, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Mouse,
As an aside, I also want to tell you how great it is having you around on this site!
I never, in a million years, thought it would be possible to have a pleasant exchange with Foxfier!
Had your "mama bear" instincts not kicked in, that would never have happened.